Lets see if we can gain some foothold in this search by gaining universal acceptance of at least one point.

I contend that the quintessential murder of the killer who has come to be known by a pen name was that of Annie Chapmans. In that murder we are given lots of physical evidence, and some circumstantial evidence. Within that data are the Method of Operations and Signatures that we will need to evaluate later murders for a killer.

Are any of those attributes present in the next murder attributed to Jack? No.
Does Annies murder and dissection reveal anything about the most probable Motive?
That he posed as a client, that he subdued before cutting the throat, that he cut twice, that his next objective was the opening of the abdomen, and when the organs sought were excised, the cutting stopped.

Lets see if we can gain some foothold in this search by gaining universal acceptance of at least one point.

I contend that the quintessential murder of the killer who has come to be known by a pen name was that of Annie Chapmans. In that murder we are given lots of physical evidence, and some circumstantial evidence. Within that data are the Method of Operations and Signatures that we will need to evaluate later murders for a killer.

Are any of those attributes present in the next murder attributed to Jack? No.
Does Annies murder and dissection reveal anything about the most probable Motive?
That he posed as a client, that he subdued before cutting the throat, that he cut twice, that his next objective was the opening of the abdomen, and when the organs sought were excised, the cutting stopped.

Sound like Liz's murder? Or Kates? Or Marys?

How about Pollys?

He also used robbery to take at least one ring from Annie's finger.

And yes in one regard it does sound like Polly's and Kelly's murders. And that is the idea that he posed as client

And yes in one regard it does sound like Polly's and Kelly's murders. And that is the idea that he posed as client

Hi Sleuth,

Well, in Pollys case I would certainly agree. I believe she is the introduction to this particular killer, and based on what he learned performing his tricks in the street itself, he modifies his approach to better facilitate extra time after the throat cut to do some pm excising. These 2 murders, to me, have no issues when marrying to one killer.

Well, in Pollys case I would certainly agree. I believe she is the introduction to this particular killer, and based on what he learned performing his tricks in the street itself, he modifies his approach to better facilitate extra time after the throat cut to do some pm excising. These 2 murders, to me, have no issues when marrying to one killer.

Its after those 2 that doubt comes into play.

So you're fine linking Nichols and Kelly (when Nichols was less extensively mutilated) but you have a hard time attributing Chapman and Eddowes to the same killer when Eddowes' injuries were more extensive and more similar to Chapman's than Nichols?

So you're fine linking Nichols and Kelly (when Nichols was less extensively mutilated) but you have a hard time attributing Chapman and Eddowes to the same killer when Eddowes' injuries were more extensive and more similar to Chapman's than Nichols?

Perhaps I was unclear. I have no issues marrying Polly and Annie with the same killer for many reasons, particularly the MO, Signatures and Victimology.

Catherine Eddowes was killed in much the same manner, but with appreciably less skill than was demonstrated in Hanbury. plus she has injuries we can call superfluous, where Annies wounds seem focused on the objective achieved. Mary Kelly is another matter altogether, we have no evidence that she was soliciting when she met her killer...we do with both Polly and Annie from their own mouths, we know she is indoors and undressed when she is attacked, we know she is a bout half the age of any other Canonical, and we can see many actions taken in that room that relate to no previous attack. Plus the same organ that was taken twice before Mary is left under her head.

Annies murder fits very naturally with Pollys in that exact sequence and timeframe. Liz fits with many, many violent acts in The East End and none of the other Canonicals, and Kate fits in part with the first 2 victims. Anyone who assumes he just went further in room 13 must also provide some evidence that there are signs that was intended or desired prior to Mary.

I don't see any interruptions to prevent any further acts after perhaps Polly.

My list is 2, perhaps 3 by the Jack fellow...although I'm more comfortable saying just 2.

Mary Kelly is another matter altogether, we have no evidence that she was soliciting when she met her killer...

She was a known prostitute. She was drinking in a pub prior to her murder. A male acquaintance said she "asked" him for money and later says he saw her approached by a male that she then went walking toward her room with. She was killed on her bed and was nearly naked. Other than video footage or a signed statement saying "I was soliciting", I'm not sure what other evidence one could expect to prove that she was soliciting.

As for the suggestion of more than one killer...

All C5 were killed silently and appeared to have not put up a struggle.
All C5 had their throats cut
All C5 were lying down, seemingly on their left sides (except Kelly) when their throats were cut, indicating that they were incapacitated first and then put down on the ground
All (but Stride) had their abdomens opened. 2, 4, and 5 were disembowelled.
Chapmen had more organs removed than Nichols- Eddowes had more organs removed than Chapman- Kelly had more organs removed than Eddowes. This all indicates a progression.
Victims 4 and 5 had extensive facial mutilations, and 5's were worse 4's. This also indicates a progression.
Victim 5 had the disembowellment, organ removal, facial mutilation. And then progressed on to breast removal and limb denudement.

All that considered, I think you'd need some very hard evidence to suggest that 2 nearly identical killers were operating within a square mile of each other at the same time

Perhaps I was unclear. I have no issues marrying Polly and Annie with the same killer for many reasons, particularly the MO, Signatures and Victimology.

Catherine Eddowes was killed in much the same manner, but with appreciably less skill than was demonstrated in Hanbury. plus she has injuries we can call superfluous, where Annies wounds seem focused on the objective achieved. Mary Kelly is another matter altogether, we have no evidence that she was soliciting when she met her killer...we do with both Polly and Annie from their own mouths, we know she is indoors and undressed when she is attacked, we know she is a bout half the age of any other Canonical, and we can see many actions taken in that room that relate to no previous attack. Plus the same organ that was taken twice before Mary is left under her head.

Annies murder fits very naturally with Pollys in that exact sequence and timeframe. Liz fits with many, many violent acts in The East End and none of the other Canonicals, and Kate fits in part with the first 2 victims. Anyone who assumes he just went further in room 13 must also provide some evidence that there are signs that was intended or desired prior to Mary.

I don't see any interruptions to prevent any further acts after perhaps Polly.

My list is 2, perhaps 3 by the Jack fellow...although I'm more comfortable saying just 2.

Sorry Michael I disagree with your comparison of Chapman and Eddowes, the degree of skill shown is a subjective opinion of a Doctor in 1888.

Sorry Michael I disagree with your comparison of Chapman and Eddowes, the degree of skill shown is a subjective opinion of a Doctor in 1888.

An opinion, moreover, which has become clouded by a journalist in The Lancet who penned memorable soundbites ("obviously the work was that of an expert" who "secured the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife") which have been dubiously attributed to Dr Phillips ever since.

I see about the same level of skill, or lack thereof, in both the Chapman and Eddowes murders. Chapman had her uterus removed below the cervix, but her bladder was divided 66:33; Eddowes' uterus was removed above the cervix, but at least the killer managed to leave her bladder intact. Both women had cuts to the colon. Personally, I'd call it a draw.

An opinion, moreover, which has become clouded by a journalist in The Lancet who penned memorable soundbites ("obviously the work was that of an expert" who "secured the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife") which have been dubiously attributed to Dr Phillips ever since.

I see about the same level of skill, or lack thereof, in both the Chapman and Eddowes murders. Chapman had her uterus removed below the cervix, but her bladder was divided 66:33; Eddowes' uterus was removed above the cervix, but at least the killer managed to leave her bladder intact. Both women had cuts to the colon. Personally, I'd call it a draw.

And of course one needs to take probably differing lighting levels into account.
Although the first Doctor on site said lighting was sufficient to work, it was probably darker than in Hanbury street which ever TOD you use!

She was a known prostitute. She was drinking in a pub prior to her murder. A male acquaintance said she "asked" him for money and later says he saw her approached by a male that she then went walking toward her room with. She was killed on her bed and was nearly naked. Other than video footage or a signed statement saying "I was soliciting", I'm not sure what other evidence one could expect to prove that she was soliciting.

She was also over 2 weeks in arrears because she hadn't been working, and Joes influence had something to do with that. Using an unsubstantiated story given 4 days after her murder is one thing, assuming its accurate without any corroborative evidence at all, or that he had spoken with her ever, is risky business. In the case of Polly and Annie, as I said, we have their own admission as to what they were doing out on those respective nights. We know Mary came home drunk at 11:45 pm Thursday, and was found 11 hours later,mutilated in bed. That's the storyline that has substance.

All C5 were killed silently and appeared to have not put up a struggle.
Mary had defensive wounds on her hands and arms, Liz may have been cut while falling.

All C5 had their throats cut
Only a few had it cut twice.

All C5 were lying down, seemingly on their left sides (except Kelly) when their throats were cut, indicating that they were incapacitated first and then put down on the ground.
I already addressed Liz, and Polly, Annie and Kate were on their backs with legs splayed open.

All (but Stride) had their abdomens opened. 2, 4, and 5 were disembowelled.
Annies killer opened her abdomen in order to access the organs that were taken, in the words of the autopsy physician. And #5 was taken apart, not "entered" by knife.

Chapmen had more organs removed than Nichols- Eddowes had more organs removed than Chapman- Kelly had more organs removed than Eddowes. This all indicates a progression.
No, this indicates lesser and then more grievous injuries, the so called "progression" is an argument, not a fact.

Victims 4 and 5 had extensive facial mutilations, and 5's were worse 4's. This also indicates a progression.
And this is the same killer who had mutilated none of the previous faces or made any large volumes of cuts that had no objective other than to disfigure? So, why do you imagine he decided he no longer had objectives beyond cutting and placing organs?

Victim 5 had the disembowellment, organ removal, facial mutilation. And then progressed on to breast removal and limb denudement.
As I said, Mary was taken apart. Annie was murdered and then had some abdominal organs removed. Its like comparing a summer breeze with a tropical storm.

All that considered, I think you'd need some very hard evidence to suggest that 2 nearly identical killers were operating within a square mile of each other at the same time
Never have suggested that there were 2 nearly identical killers working the same streets at the same time. I have suggested that what was done to the women was not always motivated by post mortem mutilation desires...as Pollys and Annies were.

And within the Canonical 5 alone, there are murders that are fundamentally unlike the others.

Its not about matching victims by what was done, its how it was done and why it was done.